Informed Consent Study - Page 2

[chickabiddy]

History can be just as offensive as science, I guess.

[pek64]

Originally Posted by chickabiddy 

History can be just as offensive as science, I guess.

Some women may not feel worn out by having several children. You might. And we have left the topic.

[Rrrrrachel]

I can't believe that question was even asked. The birthdate was much higher, life expectancy was MUCH lower. Women had so many babies to improve the odds at least a couple survived to adult hood. I mean seriously. What kind of question is that?

[pek64]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I can't believe that question was even asked. The birthdate was much higher, life expectancy was MUCH lower. Women had so many babies to improve the odds at least a couple survived to adult hood. I mean seriously. What kind of question is that?

I thought the reason they had multiple children was they didn't use birth control methods, but whatever. My point is, some women, in the current time, choose to have several children.

Besides vaccines and medications, what else has improved life expectancy?

[Jennyanydots]

A

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I can't believe that question was even asked. The birthdate was much higher, life expectancy was MUCH lower. Women had so many babies to improve the odds at least a couple survived to adult hood. I mean seriously. What kind of question is that?

And I can't believe you're implying that all of our progress is due to drugs!

[ModerateMom]

Originally Posted by pek64 


That is precisely why I view pharma funded studies with skepticism. Thank you stating my views so clearly.

I don't think I actually stated your views at all.  Pharmaceutical companies design blinded studies with randomly-selected participants, which eliminates much of the bias.  See, the problem isn't that the organization is biased (most studies of any kind have a sponsor that has a vested interest in the results), it's that the study itself is biased.  The sample isn't randomized, the sample is self-selected, and the agenda is known to the respondents.  If a pharma study has the same issues,  you'd do well to view it with skepticism.  But I don't think that really describes your concerns. 

[Rrrrrachel]

Originally Posted by Jennyanydots 

A
And I can't believe you're implying that all of our progress is due to drugs!

I'm not.

Originally Posted by pek64 

I thought the reason they had multiple children was they didn't use birth control methods, but whatever. My point is, some women, in the current time, choose to have several children.
Besides vaccines and medications, what else has improved life expectancy?

Well sure, birth control had something to do with it, too.

What else has improved life expectancy? Well, better nutrition. Better working conditions. Seat belts. Better law enforcement. All kinds of things. Advances in medical technology play a huge role, though. Arguably none bigger than vaccination.

[kathymuggle]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ModerateMom 

Why do you think this?  What evidence do you have, other than a feeling that it shouldn't be that way?  What specific types of medications for what specific types of health problems do you think are overused? 

Ritalin and other drugs to treat ADHD are often over used, IMHO:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/284466.stm

Antibiotics are another:

http://www.cdc.gov/features/antibioticresistance/

And again…I understand that sometimes these drugs are very warranted…I also know sometimes they are over and misused.

The "feeling" word bolded above is incorrect.  My belief that pharmaceuticals are often overused have come primarily through reading (largely on mainstream sites).  

[Turquesa]

Originally Posted by pek64 

Besides vaccines and medications, what else has improved life expectancy?

Um, handwashing! Thank you, Sommelweiss! And other forms of sanitation, of course.

[ModerateMom]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

Ritalin and other drugs to treat ADHD are often over used, IMHO:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/284466.stm

Antibiotics are another:

http://www.cdc.gov/features/antibioticresistance/

And again…I understand that sometimes these drugs are very warranted…I also know sometimes they are over and misused.

The "feeling" word bolded above is incorrect.  My belief that pharmaceuticals are often overused have come primarily through reading (largely on mainstream sites).  

You mean the drugs are overused in the sense that they are given due to a misdiagnosis?  Or do you think they shouldn't be used even when correctly indicated?

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 



What else has improved life expectancy? Well, better nutrition. Better working conditions. Seat belts. Better law enforcement. All kinds of things. Advances in medical technology play a huge role, though. Arguably none bigger than vaccination.

Actually I would bet most of your list plays a larger role in life expectancy than vaccines.

I started to write a long thread detailing why, but decided not to bother.  Suffice to say looking up the pre-vaccine prevalence rate and death rate (and we are only looking at death rate given the conversation is on life expectancy), the only two VADs that  would have worrisome prevalence and mortality rates in a vaccine free world are measles and Polio - and even this is not a given.  This is pretty easily proven by looking up the death rates in the CDC pink book.

Caveat:  I am only thinking of wealthy nations here.  I do not know enough about the stats in under-developed nations to posit an argument.

Edited by kathymuggle - 12/17/12 at 5:35am

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by ModerateMom 

You mean the drugs are overused in the sense that they are given due to a misdiagnosis?  Or do you think they shouldn't be used even when correctly indicated?

I think parents should decide if drugs are given.  

[Rrrrrachel]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

I think parents should decide if drugs are given.  

Don't they?  LIke 99% of the time?

[Rrrrrachel]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

Actually I would bet most of your list plays a larger role in life expectancy than vaccines.

I started to write a long thread detailing why, but decided not to bother.  Suffice to say looking up the pre-vaccine prevalence rate and death rate (and we are only looking at death rate given the conversation is on life expectancy), the only two VADs that have would have worrisome prevalence and mortality rates in a vaccine free world are measles and Polio.  This pretty easily proven by looking up the death rates in the CDC pink book.

The WHO seems to disagree with you, as well as several other similar organizations.

http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/86/2/07-040089/en/

Quote:

Vaccination has greatly reduced the burden of infectious diseases. Only clean water, also considered to be a basic human right, performs better.

 

http://www.unicef.org/immunization/files/SOWVI_full_report_english_LR1.pdf

Quote:

“With the exception of safe water, no other 

modality, not even antibiotics, has had such 

a major effect on mortality reduction…” 

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10559545

Quote:

With regard to past evidence, several data from the United Kingdom and Scandinavian countries show that the widespread use of smallpox vaccination starting at the beginning of the nineteenth century resulted in a marked and sustained decline not only of smallpox-related deaths, but also of the overall crude death rate, and contributed greatly to an unprecedented growth of European population. As to the present, it is estimated that 3 million children are saved annually by vaccination, but 2 million still die because they are not immunized.

Here is a great, although rather technical, discussion of the impact of vaccines on childhood mortality.

http://www.popcouncil.org/pdfs/wp/218.pdf

This one does a particularly good job talking about how vaccination improves life expectancy, which improves economic conditions, which improves life expectancy . . . creating a snowball effect.

http://www.who.int/immunization_supply/financing/value_vaccination_bloom_canning_weston.pdf

Here's a great discussion of the impact on life expectancy of vaccinating for varicella.

http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/34/7/885.full

Edited by Rrrrrachel - 12/16/12 at 5:04pm

[Mirzam]

Quote:

Vaccination has greatly reduced the burden of infectious diseases. Only clean water, also considered to be a basic human right, performs better.

Quote:

“With the exception of safe water, no other 

modality, not even antibiotics, has had such 

a major effect on mortality reduction…” 

 

Kathy, do read the paper I PM'ed it covers in great detail how vaccines have done nothing of the sort. Very comprehensive.

Quote:

With regard to past evidence, several data from the United Kingdom and Scandinavian countries show that the widespread use of smallpox vaccination starting at the beginning of the nineteenth century resulted in a marked and sustained decline not only of smallpox-related deaths, but also of the overall crude death rate, and contributed greatly to an unprecedented growth of European population. As to the present, it is estimated that 3 million children are saved annually by vaccination, but 2 million still die because they are not immunized.

It has a great deal of historical (non-revisionist) evidence on smallpox. It has taken me two days to get through the piece though!

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by ModerateMom 
 

I would like to know your opinion.   Do you think some pharmaceuticals are overused?

[chickabiddy]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

I think parents should decide if drugs are given.  

Lots of parents (outside MDC-land) want antibiotics for every little cough or sniffle.  I'm not confident that parents are always the best judges of what drugs kids need and when.

ETA though of course doctors can only prescribe, they can't enforce.  It is, practically, up to the parents if they choose not to give certain drugs.

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by Mirzam 

Quote:

“With the exception of safe water, no other 

modality, not even antibiotics, has had such 

a major effect on mortality reduction…” 

 

Kathy, do read the paper I PM'ed it covers in great detail how vaccines have done nothing of the sort. Very comprehensive.

Mizram…you are preaching to the choir 

I don''t think all vaccines have been useless, but there is no way I think they are the salvation of mankind, either.

Take a look at this chart - the only 2 VAD's that made the causes of death list in  pre-vaccine 1900 were flu and diptheria.

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/06/25/historical-changes-in-causes-of-death/

The flu and diptheria do not kill as many now, but that is not due to vaccines.     Diptheria is not a threat in wealthy countries as it is primarily caused by overcrowded living conditions and poor sanitation, and the flu vaccines is not overly useful.

Edited by kathymuggle - 12/17/12 at 5:32am

[Rrrrrachel]

Kathy, you should read some of the stuff I linked. It talks about how the impact of vaccination is far more nuance and far reaching than you're making it out to be.

[pek64]

Originally Posted by Turquesa 

Um, handwashing! Thank you, Sommelweiss! And other forms of sanitation, of course.

Please don't misunderstand. I know there are many things that have contributed to increased life expectancy. I just wanted the pro-vax side to admit that, even without vaccinations, life expectancy would be greater than the dark ages.